Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-165942-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1713974291.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com> <e3143c1f3d0b26fcd8884c6f75644b634a7138e8.1713974291.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
 <CAC41dw-g2=jKkevGOJUqnzYTpxQ8+Z_JxnNNuoLR+CM_yqfRzA@mail.gmail.com> <6632a2e0738d_1384629442@dwillia2-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <6632a2e0738d_1384629442@dwillia2-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com.notmuch>
Reply-To: sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com
From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 20:40:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAC41dw_Dnm=suyue+jFx2z8f+YT1K_aWfQEijrU=WH4OLWpOqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/15] x86/sev: Take advantage of configfs visibility
 support in TSM
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, 
	linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, svsm-devel@coconut-svsm.dev, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, 
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, 
	Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>, Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 1:15=E2=80=AFPM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.c=
om> wrote:
>
> Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 9:00=E2=80=AFAM Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@a=
md.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The TSM attestation report support provides multiple configfs attribu=
te
> > > types (both for standard and binary attributes) to allow for addition=
al
> > > attributes to be displayed for SNP as compared to TDX. With the abili=
ty
> > > to hide attributes via configfs, consoldate the multiple attribute gr=
oups
> > > into a single standard attribute group and a single binary attribute
> > > group. Modify the TDX support to hide the attributes that were previo=
usly
> > > "hidden" as a result of registering the selective attribute groups.
> > >
> > > Co-developed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
> [..]
> > > + */
> > > +enum tsm_attr_index {
> > > +       TSM_REPORT_GENERATION,
> >
> > Do we need an index for the generation attribute ? Since it is a core
> > function, we can allow it by default.
>
> That is up to the is_visible() callback to decide the declaration of
> which index corresponds to which attribute is just static information.
>
> >
> > > +       TSM_REPORT_PROVIDER,
> >
> > Same as above.
>
> These numbers need to match the array indices of tsm_report_attrs.
>
> Your suggestion makes the declaration of tsm_report_attrs more
> difficult:
>
>  static struct configfs_attribute *tsm_report_attrs[] =3D {
>     [TSM_REPORT_GENERATION] =3D &tsm_report_attr_generation,
>     [TSM_REPORT_PROVIDER] =3D &tsm_report_attr_provider,
>     [TSM_REPORT_PRIVLEVEL] =3D &tsm_report_attr_privlevel,
>     [TSM_REPORT_PRIVLEVEL_FLOOR] =3D &tsm_report_attr_privlevel_floor,
>     NULL,
>  };
>
> ...because then the definition of TSM_REPORT_PRIVLEVEL would need to
> know how many attributes precede it in the array. So, defining it this
> way makes it more robust against future changes that want to
> add/delete/reorder attributes in the array.

Got it. Makes sense. It is simpler to do it this way. I am just
worried that the vendor driver might mistakenly disable some core
attributes like inblob, outblob, provider and generation.